Talk:Greater sanctuary
Customizations A couple of things not mentioned are that some servers will make it so the spell lasts only a very short time to keep players from sneaking around. Thirty seconds may be just enough time to run away or heal or buff yourself but not enough time to run to the end to kill only the boss. Secondly, some server add a will save to it so creatures with a high will save can still see you and attack as if you had not used it. And it can always be dispelled, although I don't know how a creature can dispell your spells if they don't even know you're there. I guess the ones who make a will save to see you can always do it. -- 11 November 2006 * A mord cast on the ground next to you (or your last known position) will breach GS 151.57.239.68 17:31, 17 November 2006 (PST) inv+GS bug "It has been documented that as of version 1.68, a bug exists where combining improved invisibility with greater sanctuary allows creatures to ignore the etherealness of greater sanctuary. needed It is unknown whether this is due to the improved invisibility spell, its invisibility effect, or its concealment effect. Relogging into a multiplayer server will sometimes fix this bug (but may have other, possibly detrimental, effects)." Well I remeber this bug been there before 1.68 and its not only improved invisibility, and it affect also PCs. It appears this bug happens whenever invisibility effect is combined with ethereal effect and anyone can then attack this player. ShaDoOoW -- 12:05, September 16, 2009 (UTC) * Yep. The bug also seems not to occur unless enemy creatures have see invisibility or true seeing. Presumably, the engine's perception routine simply skips the sanctuary check if it's already determined a positive check for seeing through invisibility. Anonymous User #4957 -- September 6, 2010 :* There appears to be another oddity regarding this bug. ::The etherealness is indeed stripped for the FIRST casting of the combo. However, if it is repeated in the same area where the hostile(s) could see the PC (i.e. another casting of Imp Invis followed by GS or vice versa; the sequence does not seem to matter), the PC remains completely ethereal and undetectable while running in a circle around the hostile NPC or just standing next to it. I've tested this with a level 40 sorc hostile scripted to spam Mords OnPerception who does (as expected) start casting the Mords after the first combo has been applied. The Sorc was also given a True Seeing skin though detection skills (Listen/Spot) were both 0 and default perception range from changed to "Short". It also doesn't matter if the buffs are cast via spellbook or scrolls... same result. ::So apparently, the perception check either runs differently after the initial time or only checks it once. Has anyone else noticed the same phenomenon and/or can explain why the different results are happening? --Iconclast 18:14, August 14, 2011 (UTC) ::* Did the PC remain undetectable, or did the PC never become undetected with the second casting of improved invisibility/GS? Was your Mords spam triggered by any OnPerception (appear, disappear, heard, no longer heard) or just by a creature becoming visible? --The Krit 15:26, September 8, 2011 (UTC) Difference between sanctuary and greater sanctuary Whats the difference between this spell and the regular Sanctuary? Is it only the duration? If so seems a bit too much for a level 7 spell, if same effect can be achieved with a level 1 spell (in fact Sanctuary is a bit better in the fact that target is anyone, not just self). 00:07, February 27, 2011 (UTC) * There is also the lack of a saving throw for greater sanctuary. --The Krit 17:58, March 20, 2011 (UTC) Unbalanced? Wether this spell is unbalanced or not, is a personal statement. Better to write something like "Some people find this spell to be unbalanced". 03:16, June 12, 2013 (UTC) *I would support de-editorializing the comment. Particulalrly given that "balance" is difficult to quantify objectively, it may be best to avoid outright stating that a given spell is unbalancing. It also seems that the noted advantage to the user applies pretty much equally in single-player modules. (Assuming the writer wasn't intending PvP situations when writing "threatened by monsters".) Perhaps the "in multiplayer" part could be removed as well? E.g. The spell can significantly reduce the challenge of many encounters, as it allows the caster to move about unmolested by most opponents. - MrZork (talk) 18:39, June 12, 2013 (UTC) * Yeah, that could be improved. It was added seven years ago by an anonymous user ( ) who has no other contributions, so it's unlikely that person will come back to discuss improvements. --The Krit (talk) 01:59, June 13, 2013 (UTC) * Done. --The Krit (talk) 18:38, July 7, 2013 (UTC)